New York Law Review

Tag: Domestic Relations Law

  • Romano v. Romano, 19 N.Y.2d 440 (1967): Time Limit as Element of Statutory Cause of Action

    Romano v. Romano, 19 N.Y.2d 440 (1967)

    When a statute creates a cause of action and simultaneously sets a time limit for bringing the action, the time limit is an integral part of the cause of action itself, not merely a statute of limitations, and the plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with the time limit as part of their case.

    Summary

    Plaintiff sought to annul her marriage based on the defendant’s fraudulent representations, alleging she left him promptly upon discovering the fraud. Although the fraud was discovered in 1950, she did not commence the action until 1964. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the statutory time limit for commencing an annulment action based on fraud is an inherent element of the cause of action or merely a statute of limitations. The Court held that the time limit is an integral part of the statutory cause of action. Therefore, the plaintiff’s failure to bring the action within the prescribed time barred her claim, even though the defendant defaulted.

    Facts

    The parties married on January 6, 1950. The plaintiff alleged that her consent to the marriage was obtained through the defendant’s fraudulent representations. She left the defendant in August 1950, promptly upon discovering the alleged fraud. The action for annulment was commenced in November 1964, over 14 years after she discovered the fraud.

    Procedural History

    The trial court dismissed the action. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the three-year period for commencing an action to annul a marriage for fraud is part of the cause of action itself. The plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the time limit for commencing an action to annul a marriage based on fraud, as specified in the Domestic Relations Law and CPLR, is an inherent element of the cause of action or merely a statute of limitations that must be affirmatively asserted as a defense.

    Holding

    No, because the action for annulment of marriage based on fraud is purely statutory, and the time limit is a qualification annexed to the created right, limiting the right as well as the remedy.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that if a statute creates a cause of action and attaches a time limit to its commencement, the time limit is an ingredient of the cause of action. The Court emphasized that the action to annul a marriage is purely statutory, noting, “An action to annul a marriage is purely statutory”. It relied on the statutory language in Domestic Relations Law § 140(e), which states that an action to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud “may be maintained” within the limitations of time provided by the CPLR. Since the statute literally creates the cause of action, the time fixed in the statute must be treated as a qualification annexed to the created right. The court also noted that at the time of the fraud and discovery, the statute allowed such actions to be commenced “at any time,” but the 1955 amendment requiring commencement within a reasonable time was not met, as this action was commenced more than nine years after the amendment’s enactment. The Court quoted Osbourne v. United States, stating, “Generally, where a statute creates a cause of action which was unknown at common law, a period of limitation set up in the same statute is regarded as a matter of substance, limiting the right as well as the remedy.” This principle dictates that the time requirement is a condition put by law upon a substantive right. Therefore, the plaintiff’s failure to commence the action within the prescribed time barred her claim, even though the defendant defaulted.

  • Schneider v. Schneider, 17 N.Y.2d 123 (1966): Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses in Child Support Agreements

    Schneider v. Schneider, 17 N.Y.2d 123 (1966)

    Parties to a separation agreement may agree to arbitrate disputes regarding the amount of child support, and such agreements do not violate CPLR 1209 or Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a provision in a separation agreement mandating arbitration for disputes over child support is enforceable. The Schneiders divorced in Alabama, incorporating a separation agreement for alimony and child support. After both remarried, a dispute arose over child support payments. The wife argued that arbitration was illegal under New York law and sought a court order determining support and enjoining arbitration. The New York Court of Appeals held that the arbitration clause was enforceable, clarifying that CPLR 1209 and Domestic Relations Law § 240 do not prohibit parents from agreeing to arbitrate child support disputes.

    Facts

    Plaintiff and Defendant divorced in Alabama in 1960.
    Prior to the divorce, they entered into a separation agreement providing for alimony and child support, which was approved by the Alabama court.
    The agreement stipulated that alimony payments would cease if the wife remarried, but child support obligations would continue, with arbitration as the mechanism for resolving any disputes over the amount.
    Both parties remarried. A dispute arose regarding the amount of child support owed after the wife’s remarriage.
    The wife contended the arbitration provision was illegal and sought a court order to determine child support and prevent arbitration.

    Procedural History

    The wife moved in Supreme Court for an order fixing child support and restraining arbitration.
    Special Term granted the motion, deeming arbitration illegal.
    The Appellate Division reversed, finding arbitration permissible, aligning with the First Department’s decision in Sheets v. Sheets.
    The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether CPLR 1209 and Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law prohibit parents from agreeing to arbitrate disputes concerning the amount of child support.

    Holding

    No, because neither CPLR 1209 nor Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law explicitly prohibits arbitration of child support disputes when agreed upon by the parents.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals addressed the wife’s arguments based on CPLR 1209 and Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law.
    CPLR 1209 states that a controversy involving an infant shall not be submitted to arbitration except pursuant to a court order made upon application of the representative of such infant. The Court noted prior decisions (Matter of Robinson, Matter of Luttinger, Sheets v. Sheets) established that a separation agreement is a contract solely between the husband and wife. The child is not a party, though a beneficiary.
    The court addressed the change in language from Civil Practice Act § 1448 (“A controversy cannot be arbitrated…where one of the parties to the controversy is an infant”) to CPLR 1209 (“no arbitration of a controversy involving an infant”). The court found no legislative intent to change the meaning of the law with this change.
    Regarding Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law, the court found nothing in the statute to contradict the well-settled rule that parties can agree to arbitrate support money disagreements. The court emphasized that this law gives courts broad powers regarding custody and support of children but does not expressly prevent arbitration.
    The court cited Sheets v. Sheets, emphasizing judicial oversight of arbitration awards related to children’s interests: “Thus, the best interest of the child is assured protection by this omnipresent judicial check against arbitration awards in custody matters attaining the unassailable finality of awards in other arbitrations.”
    The court distinguished Chernick v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., as that case involved an infant’s direct claim for personal injury damages, unlike the current situation where the arbitration stems from a separation agreement between parents.

  • Winter v. Winter, 191 N.Y. 462 (1908): Enforceability of Separation Agreements Between Spouses

    Winter v. Winter, 191 N.Y. 462 (1908)

    A separation agreement entered into directly between a husband and wife after separation, providing for the wife’s support, is valid and enforceable at law, provided the support provision is adequate and was not entered into imprudently.

    Summary

    This case addresses the enforceability of a separation agreement made directly between a husband and wife after they had already separated. The court held that such agreements are valid and enforceable, overturning prior common law restrictions that required a trustee for such arrangements. The decision emphasizes that a wife is now empowered to contract with her husband as if unmarried, except to dissolve the marriage or release him from his support obligation. The court reasoned that as long as the support provided is adequate and the agreement was entered into prudently, it is a valid contract enforceable in a court of law.

    Facts

    The husband and wife separated, and subsequently, they entered into a separation agreement. The agreement stipulated the terms of the wife’s support. The wife then sought to enforce this agreement in court.

    Procedural History

    The trial court’s decision was not specified in the provided text. The Appellate Term ruled against the agreement’s validity. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the agreement enforceable based on their opinion in Effray v. Effray. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a separation agreement entered into directly between a husband and wife after separation is valid and enforceable at law, considering the Domestic Relations Law and the absence of a trustee.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Domestic Relations Law allows a wife to contract with her husband as if unmarried, and the agreement does not relieve the husband of his duty to support his wife, but rather provides a mutually agreed-upon mechanism for fulfilling that duty.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the Domestic Relations Law effectively emancipated married women, granting them the power to contract freely, including with their husbands. The court reviewed the historical progression of legislation aimed at granting married women greater contractual freedom. It noted that prior to these legislative changes, separation agreements required a trustee because the husband and wife were considered a single legal entity. The court emphasized that the provision in the Domestic Relations Law prohibiting contracts that relieve the husband of his duty to support his wife was intended to protect wives from improvidently relinquishing their right to support, not to invalidate agreements where the wife willingly accepts a satisfactory provision. The court distinguished agreements made before separation, which are often deemed void as against public policy because they encourage separation. Here, the agreement was made after the separation had already occurred. The court cited Pettit v. Pettit as precedent. The court stated: “She is the best judge of what she needs for her support and the amount may be fixed and settled by an agreement made after actual separation without violating any principle of law or any statute now in existence.” Finally, the court held that because a married woman can contract directly with her husband and is liable on such contracts as if she were unmarried, resort to equity is no longer necessary. The wife can bring an action at law to enforce the agreement, just as she could to enforce a promissory note.